The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-05-21

THE LONDON TIMES" AND IRISH
AFFAIRS.

The Parnel letter in the London
Chimes" has all the ear-marks of for
gerry. 1t was bought by the "Times,'
which says that it verified the signature
before publication and that there could
be no doubt of its genuineness. Recent
cases of forgery, however, clearly show
that an expert even may be imposed
upon in handwriting. 1t is beyond
shadow of doubt that the late VIM
Sharon of San Francisco wrote the sig
nature attached to the famous marriage
contract with Sarah Althea Hill, but it
is equally beyond question that the con-
tract itself is forgery. He neither
wrote nor dictated the document to
which his name was signed despite the
affirmative decision of the Judge in the
divorce suit.
But the nearest parallel case to that
of the Parnell letter in the times
was the famous Garfield letter, which
led to so much political acrimony in the
States, and nearly cost the Republicans
the Presidential election. 1t was
clean-cut forgery without doubt, but. so
cleverly was the signature initiated that
upon comparing genuine letter with
the fac smile of the bogus one, as the
writer did, it was impossible to dis
tinguish one from the other Neverthe-
less Mr.. Garfield never wrote or signed
the letter in question, and did not cher
ish the sentiments it attributed to him
on Chinese immigration. 1t was
Campaign document issued to defeat
his election for President OF the United
States, and it certainly did lose him the
California vote in the Electoral College.
We have no doubt whatever that the
landlord workers" in desperate at
tempt to influence English opinion adj
versely to the Irish national party, paid
for this forgery to destroy Mr.. Parnell's
influence as an honorable, high minded
gentleman; and we have equally little
doubt, that the partisanship and I'M
reasoning antagonism to Home Rule on
the part of those who now control the
"Times" made them easy, because will
ing, dupes OF a rascally and un-English
conspiracy. 1t may not be possible to
discover the actual forger in this case
any more than it was in the case of the
Garfield letter; but its publication in
the "Times," backed by strong edi-
torial Endorsement, must go far towards
weakening the influence of that once
all-powerful newspaper.
Encouraged by the approval of the
Tory leaders, who cannot have given
temperate consideration to this very
grave matter, the ''Times" ventured to
charge that Mr.. Dillon lied in his place
in the House of Commons, when he said
that he was not an accomplice of Sheridan,
the Irish Invincible. This was gross
breach of the privileges of the House,
and could not be passed unnoticed.
Fortunately for the Tory party attention
was called to it by Mr.. Chas. E. Lewis,
Conservative member for North Antrim,
and Mr.. p. A. Muntz, Conservative
member for Tamworth, an English
borough. The first moved that the
wholesale charge of the "Times'' con-
stituted a distinct breach of privilege,
and the other member named seconded
the motion. The Government, however,
opposed it, and moved an adjournment
of the debate in order that matters of
fact might be argued. The motion for
adjournment prevailed by 213 to ia
votes.
1t is to be regretted that the Tory Adj
ministration should have gone against
two of its supporters on this question,
and by making the privilege of Parlia-
ment depend upon an argument on the
facts involved in any charge against a
member, show disposition to abridge
the privileges of the House of Commons.
The offensive comment in the news
paper upon language spoken in debate
is the only question that can arise on
the motion of privilege. The fact of
publication is easily established, and
that done the House proceeds to say
whether it is Or is not breach of the
privileges of the House. The truth or
falsity of the statement made by the
member has nothing whatever to do
with it so far as the offending newspaper
Is concerned. Party feeling will hardly